See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259849144

Relationships between liquid limit, cation exchange capacity, and swelling

potentials of clayey soils

Article  in  Eurasian Soil Science · May 2004

CITATIONS READS

11 2,026

1 author:

Isik Yilmaz
Sivas Cumhuriyet University
166 PUBLICATIONS   3,032 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A new unified classification system on clayey soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isik Yilmaz on 24 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Eurasian Soil Science, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2004, pp. 506–512. From Pochvovedenie, No. 5, 2004, pp. 588–595.
Original English Text Copyright © 2004 by Yœlmaz.
English Translation Copyright © 2004 by MAIK “Nauka /Interperiodica” (Russia).

SOIL
PHYSICS

Relationships between Liquid Limit, Cation Exchange Capacity,

and Swelling Potentials of Clayey Soils1
I. Yœlmaz
Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geology, 58140 Sivas, Turkey
Received November 22, 2001

Abstract—As is known, the liquid limit has been used worldwide as an index test for a quick consistency char-
acterization of clayey soils, as it is easy and inexpensive to determine. Consistency is a result of the hydrophilic
and cohesive nature of clays caused by the adsorbed water surrounding the clay particles. Cation exchange
capacity is a parameter that is affected by the type of clay mineral, and there is a relationship between cation
exchange capacity and liquid limit. However, there is no clearly defined quantitative relation between them. In
this study, fine-grained soil samples have been collected from various locations and tested. The tests include
determination of cation exchange capacity and liquid limit. The parameters obtained were correlated, and a
regression equation established showing a high coefficient of correlation (R = 0.97). Finally, a classification and
swelling potential chart for clayey soils is suggested based on the cation exchange capacity and the liquid limit.

1 INTRODUCTION volume change in drying. However, none of these

Methods of predicting volume changes in soils can above-mentioned classifications are based on the cation
be grouped into empirical methods, soil suction meth- exchange capacity, which is a significant factor in the
ods, and odometer methods. Empirical methods make swelling potential of clayey soils.
use of the swelling potential as determined from void This study aims at deriving a relationship between
ratio, natural moisture content, liquid and plastic limits, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) and the liquid limit
and activity index. However, because the determination (LL) of clay soils. The liquid limit and CEC are both
of plasticity characteristics is carried out on remolded factors that control the swelling characteristics of the
soil, it does not consider the influence of soil texture, soils. It is generally believed that there is a relationship
natural moisture content, soil suction, or pore water between the cation exchange capacity and the liquid
chemistry, which are important factors in relation to limit, but the exact nature of this relationship has not
volume change potential. One of the properties, which yet been determined. The cation exchange capacity of
has been widely used to predict the potential expansive- the soils varies according to the type of clay minerals;
ness of clay soils, is its activity. Expansive soils, how- it increases with an increasing content of expansive
ever, can plot within the field of low expansion on the clay minerals. The liquid limit value increases corre-
activity chart developed by van der Merwe (1964), and spondingly and is known to be particularly high for
vice versa. Over reliance on the result of this simple montmorillonite saturated with Li or Na.
test, therefore, must be avoided. Consequently, empiri- Regression analyses were performed to express the
cal methods should be regarded as simple swelling relationship between CEC and LL by using data from
indicator methods and nothing more (Bell and the laboratory tests, and a best-fit relation was chosen.
Culshaw, 1998; Bell and Maud, 1995). Finally, by using the obtained relationship, a new clas-
Classification systems for expansive soils are based sification and swelling potential chart was proposed.
on the problems they create in the construction of foun-
dations (potential swell) (Das, 1995). The important MATERIALS AND METHODS
classification schemes found in literature are summa-
rized in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The classification of the The soils used in this study constitute the fine-
swelling potential shown in Fig. 1a is based on the test grained fractions of alluvial soils from various loca-
using a compacted specimen, percentage of clay, and tions of Turkey. Sufficient amounts of remolded soils
activity. The liquid limit and plasticity index are used were collected from different locations from 1 to 4 m in
for classification in Fig. 1b, and it is based on the plas- depth. The cation exchange capacity and the liquid
ticity chart. The classification chart in Fig. 1c takes the limit values of 139 soil samples were determined in the
plasticity index and percent of clay in the whole sample laboratory.
into consideration. The classification in Fig. 1d is based 139 soil samples having the same clay content and
on measurements of soil water content, suction, and minerals, and same grain-size distribution were
selected from 175 samples. The organic content of the
1 This article was submitted by the author in English. soils was also determined because of the known effects

506
 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LIQUID LIMIT, CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY 507

Table 1. Summary of some criteria for identifying swell potential (after Abduljauwad and Al-Sulaimani, 1993)
Reference Criteria Remarks
Holtz (1959) CC > 28, PI > 35, SL < 11 (very high); Based on CC, PI, and SL
20 ≤ CC ≤ 31, 25 ≤ PI ≤ 41, 7 ≤ SL ≤ 12 (high);
13 ≤ CC ≤ 23, 15 ≤ PI ≤ 28, 10 ≤ SL ≤ 16 (medium)
Seed et al. (1962) See Fig. 1a Based on odometer test using compacted
specimen, percentage of clay <2 µm and
activity
Altmeyer (1955) LS < 5, SL > 12, PS < 0.5 (noncritical); Based on LS, SL, and PS. Remolded
5≤ LS ≤ 8, 10 ≤ SL ≤ 12, 0.5 ≤ PS ≤ 1.5 (marginal); sample (γdmax and wopt). Soaked under
LS > 8, SL < 10, PS > 1.5 (critical) 6.9 kPa surcharge
Dakshanamurthy See Fig. 1b Based on plasticity chart
and Raman (1973)
Raman (1967) PI > 32, SI > 40 (very high); 23 ≤ PI ≤ 32, 30 ≤ SI ≤ 40 Based on PI and SI
(high); 12 ≤ PI ≤ 23, 15 ≤ SI ≤ 30 (medium); PI < 12,
SI < 15 (low)
Sowers and Sowers (1970) SL < 10, PI > 30 (high); 10 ≤ SL < 12, 15 ≤ PI ≤ 30 (medi- Little swell will occur when w0 results in
um); SL > 12, PI < 15 (low) LI of 0.25
Van der Merwe (1964) See Fig. 1c Based on PI, percentage of clay <2 µm
and activity
Uniform Building Code EI > 130 (very high); 91 ≤ EI ≤ 130 (high); Based on odometer test on compacted
(1968) 51 ≤ EI ≤ 90 (medium); 21 ≤ EI ≤ 50 (low); specimen with degree of saturation close
0 ≤ EI ≤ 20 (very low) to 50% and surcharge of 6.9 kPa
Snethen (1984) LL > 60, PI > 35, τnat > 4, SP > 1.5 (high); PS is representative for field conditions,
30 ≤ LL ≤ 60, 25 ≤ PI ≤ 35, 1.5 ≤ τnat ≤ 4, 0.5 ≤ SP ≤ 1.5 can be used without τnat, but accuracy
(medium); LL < 30, PI < 25, τnat < 1.5, SP < 0.5 (low) will be reduced
Chen (1988) PI ≥ 35 (very high); 20 ≤ PI ≤ 55 (high); Based on PI
10 ≤ PI ≤ 35 (medium), PI ≤ 15 (low)
McKeen (1992) See Fig. 1d Based on measurements of soft water con-
tent, suction, and volume change on drying
Vijayvergiya and Ghazzaly log SP = (1/12)(0.44LL – w0 + 5.5) Empirical equations
(1973)
Nayak and Christensen SP = (0.00229PI)(1.45c)/w0 + 6.38 Empirical equations
(1974)
– 2.33
Weston (1980) SP = 0.00411(LL)4.17q–3.86 w 0 Empirical equations
Note: CC = clay (<0.002 mm) content, %; LI = liquidity index, % ([w0 – PL]/PI); LL = liquid limit, %; PL = plastic limit, %; LS = linear
shrinkage, %; PI = plasticity index, %; γdmax = maximum dry density; EI = expansion index = 100 × percent swell × fraction passing
No. 4 sieve; PS = probable swell, %; q = surcharge; SI = shrinkage index = LL – SL, %; SL = shrinkage limit, % (lower limit of
volume change); SP = swell potential, %; w0 = natural moisture content, %; τnat = natural soil suction in tsf.

of the organic matter on the engineering behavior of the fraction determination and oriented samples of the
soils. clay-size fraction by X-ray diffraction. According to
In the first stage of the laboratory experiments, fine the X-ray diffraction results, smectite and kaolinite
sieving and hydrometer methods were used for grain- appear to be the dominant clay minerals, whereas illite
size analyses (ASTM D-421, D-422). The range of and chlorite appear in lesser proportions. Silt and sand
grain size shows that the materials are generally clayey size particles are composed of calcite, feldspar, and
soils (Fig. 2). quartz (Table 2).
Geotechnical characteristics of clayey soils are The plasticity index slightly increases with increas-
associated with their mineralogical composition, espe- ing organic content, up to 10%, after which the plastic-
cially with clay mineralogy. For instance, the plasticity ity index decreases with increasing organic content.
and swelling potential increase due to increasing per- And free swell for illitic soils increases with increasing
centages of smectite in clay (after Yœlmaz and Karacan, levels of organic matter (Malkawi et al., 1999). The
1997). Mineralogical determinations were carried out organic matter of the soils was determined by the
in two stages, which included whole-rock powder dif- Walkey–Black method (Nelson and Sommers, 1982)

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 37 No. 5 2004

508 YŒLMAZ

(a) (b)
5 Swelling

Nonplastic

Medium
Extra high

Low

High

Very
high
4
120

Plasticity index, %
100 )
3 20
Activity 1 )
LL–
80 L –8 3(
(L .7
2 Very high 9 =0
60 0. lin
e
Me e= A
lin

Hi
di um 40 U
Swelling
gh
1 potential
Low 25 % 20
5%
1.5%
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Percent clay size (<0.002 mm), % Liquid limit, %
(c) (d)
100 7
Plasticity index of whole sample

I Special case
Very high II High
6
III Moderate
IV Low
5 V Nonexpansive
Suction (pF)
50 4
I
3 V IV III II
High
Me-
dium 2
Low
1
0 50 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of clay (<0.002 mm) in whole sample Soil water content, %

Fig. 1. Commonly used criteria for determining swell potential (after Abduljauwad and Al-Sulaimani, 1993).

and was found to vary from 0.64% to 0.85%, with an

average value of 0.71%. This low value of organic con-
100 tent is not expected to influence the engineering charac-
90 teristics of the soils to any significant extent.
Percentage passing, %

80 When clay minerals are present in fine-grained soil,

70 it can be remolded in the presence of some moisture
60 without crumbling. This cohesive nature is caused from
50 the adsorbed water surrounding the clay particles. The
liquid limit increases by increasing the quantity of
40
expansive clay minerals such as montmorillonite, etc.
30 The liquid limit values of the samples were determined
20 according to the procedure outlined in British Standard
10 (BS) 1377.
0.0001 0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 Swelling properties of the soils are affected by CEC;
Particle size, mm in other words, the swelling capacity is closely related
to the CEC. The amount of swelling increases with
F M C F M C increasing CEC (Christidis, 1998). Al-Rawas (1998)
Clay
fraction
Silt fraction Sand fraction
has also reported that the cations are the factors control-
ling the expansive nature of soils. One of the fundamen-
F—fine, M—medium, C—coarse tal differences between clay minerals lies in the amount
and kind of exchangeable cations present on their sur-
Fig. 2. Grain-size distributions of the clayey soils. faces and the excess negative charge of the crystal lat-

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 37 No. 5 2004

 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LIQUID LIMIT, CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY 509

tice, which these cations neutralize. The property of ion CEC, meq/100 g
exchange is of great fundamental and practical impor- 82
tance in the investigation of the clay minerals. The cat- CEC = Â(2.63 + 0.02 LL) r = 0.97
ion exchange capacity of a soil is the number of moles 72
of adsorbed cation charge that can be desorbed from
unit mass of soil, under given conditions of tempera- 62
ture, pressure, soil solution composition, and soil–solu-
tion mass ratio (Sposito, 1989). For soils in which the 52
readily exchangeable cations are solely monovalent or 42
bivalent, the “index” cation can be Na+, whereas, for
soils also bearing trivalent readily exchangeable cat- 32
+
ions, Ba2+ is the “index” cation of choice. Often NH 4 22
has been used as an “index” cation. In this study, NH 4
+ 25 35 45 55 65 75 85
LL, %
was used as an index cation.
In the last stage of the laboratory experiments, the Fig. 3. Relationship between CEC and LL values of the
cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soils was mea- clayey soils.
sured by using the ammonium acetate (NH4OAc)
method. The basis of this method is the replacement of
+
sodium (Na+) ions with ammonium ( NH 4 ) ions. In the also reported a similar relationship for the alluvial soils
tests, the soils were first saturated with the sodium ions of the Niksar and Erbaa basins (Tokat, Turkey). These
and then the replacement of sodium ions with ammo- all show that there is a strong relationship between CEC
nium ions were provided by adding a solution contain- and LL.
ing ammonium at a pH of 7 (Bache, 1976). At the end The plasticity chart, as suggested by Casagrande
of the cation exchange capacity tests, the amount of (1948) and later modified by Dumbleton (1968), had
sodium in the solution was determined by the atomic been further modified by Dakshanamurthy and Raman
adsorption method.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2. Results of X-ray diffraction of whole-rock powder

Table 3 shows the test results of laboratory tests and and clay-size determination
the basic test statistics. The cation exchange capacity
Minerals Minimum Maximum Average STD
(CEC) of the samples ranged between 22.2 and
79.7 meq/100 g with an average value of Bulk sample
42.07 meq/100 g. The average value of liquid limit Clay miner- 65 92 712 7.3
(LL) was found to be 54.9% and varied from 25% to als, %
85%.
Calcite, % 4 20 14.0 5.0
Regression analyses were performed by using the
obtained CEC and LL values (Table 3). The best-fit Quartz, % 3 18 10.5 3.0
relationship was found to follow an exponential model. Feldspar, % 8 27 16.2 4.7
Figure 3 shows the plot of the cation exchange Clay minerals
capacity (CEC) against the liquid limit (LL) for soil Smectite, % 25 75 51.0 11.3
samples. The test results showed a very good correla- Illite, % 5 20 12.5 6.2
tion between the two parameters with a correlation
coefficient (R) of 0.97 (Table 4). The relationship Kaolinite, % 15 50 27.3 10.5
between the two can be expressed as Chlorite, % 0 20 16.4 5.8
CEC = Â(2.63 + 0.02 èí). (1) Note: STD, standard deviation.
The relationship between CEC and LL values with
a very good correlation (R = 0.93) was obtained in this Table 3. Test results and their basic test statistics
study by regression analyses on the test results of
Nawari and Schetelig (1991). When the CEC and LL Mini- Maxi- Aver-
Test STD
test values of clay soils from the Eastern Province of mum mum age
Saudi Arabia (Abduljauwad, 1994) were also corre- Cation exchange capacity 22.2 79.7 42.07 12.024
lated in this study, and a good relation also was (CEC), meq/100 g
obtained (R = 0.89). Likewise, a good relation (R =
Liquid limit (LL), % 25 85 54.9 13.735
0.81) was obtained by using the CEC and LL test
results of Sridharan and Rao (1988). Yœlmaz (1999) has Note: STD, standard deviation.

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 37 No. 5 2004

510 YŒLMAZ

Table 4. Results of regression analyses

Regression analysis, exponential model: Y = exp(a + bX)
Dependent variable: CEC; independent variable: LL
Parameter Estimate Standard error T value Prob. level
Intercept 2.62482 0.0255816 102.606 0.00000
Slope 0.0195849 4.51991 × 10–4 43.3304 0.00000
Analysis of variance
Source Sum of squares Df Mean square F-ratio Prob. level
Model 10.0586 1 10.0586 1877.522 0.00000
Residual 0.73396 137 0.00536
Lack-of-fit 0.344860 59 0.005845 1.17171 0.25450
Pure error 0.389104 78 0.004989
Total (corr.) 10.79261 138
Correlation coefficient = 0.965398 R-squared = 93.20%
Standard error of Est. = 0.0731943

Table 5. Classification of the swelling potential of soils ac- (1973) for classification of the degree of swelling, hav-
cording to their liquid limit values (developed by Dakshana- ing the liquid limit on the X-axis, and the plasticity
murthy and Raman, 1973) index and shrinkage index on the left and right hand
Liquid limit, % Swelling classification sides of Y-axis. The chart mentioned above is divided
into six classes along with their liquid limit values
0–20 nonswelling (Table 5). A new swelling classification of clayey soils
20–35 low swelling is suggested (Table 6) based on cation exchange capac-
35–50 medium swelling ity. Limit values of the proposed classification were cal-
culated from Eq. (1) by using the limit LL values of six
50–70 high swelling class in Table 5.
70–90 very high swelling The cation exchange capacity values for some clay
>90 extremely high swelling minerals, as reported by Grim (1968), are tabulated in
Table 7. The high to extremely high swelling group in
the proposed classification in this study (Table 6) indi-
Table 6. Proposed swelling potential classification of the cates the existence of the expansive clay minerals such
clayey soils according to their CEC values as smectite, vermiculite, etc., but nonswelling, low, and
Cation exchange capacity, medium swelling classes show the existence of the
Swelling classification kaolinite, illite, and chlorite that are non/low-expansive
meq/100 g
clay minerals.
<27 low swelling Finally, a swelling potential chart was suggested for
27–37 medium swelling classification of the degree of swelling having liquid
37–55 high swelling
limit on the X-axis and cation exchange capacity on the
Y-axis (Fig. 4). Thus, the clayey soils can be classified
>55 very high swelling according to their consistency and physicochemical
properties.
To provide the validation of the proposed classifica-
Table 7. CEC values for some clay minerals (Grim, 1968) tion, some samples were tested for both swelling poten-
Clay mineral CEC, meq/100 g tial and cation exchange capacity, and results were
compared with the classification. As can be seen in
Kaolinite 3–15 Fig. 5, four groups of soils having low, medium, high,
and very high swelling potential were obtained accord-
Smectite 80–150 ing to their plasticity index and percent of clay size. The
Illite 10–40 range values of the cation exchange capacity for the
Chlorite 10–40
above mentioned groups were obtained, respectively,
22.5–24.0, 29.2–36.0, 39.0–54.0, and 57.2–
Vermiculite 100–150 72.4 meq/100 g. Comparison of the obtained CEC val-

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 37 No. 5 2004

 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LIQUID LIMIT, CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY 511

CEC, meq/100 g paper that takes cation exchange capacity into consid-
eration.
50 Very high swelling

40 High swelling
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Medium swelling
30 The author is grateful to Drs. R. Pusch and I. Smal-
20 Low ley for their criticism, which led to improvement of the
swelling
10
manuscript.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 LL, % REFERENCES
1. S. N. Abduljauwad, Quart. J. Eng. Geol. 27, 333 (1994).
Fig. 4. Proposed swelling potential chart for the clayey soils 2. S. N. Abduljauwad and G. J. Al-Sulaimani, J. Am. Soc.
due to CEC and LL values. Test. Mater., 16, 469 (1993).
3. A. A. Al-Rawas, Eng. Geol. 53, 327 (1998).
70 Very high 4. W. T. Altmeyer, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc.
swelling Test. Mater. 81 (2), 17 (1955).
2.0

60 High 5. ASTM Standards, Sec. 4, v. 04.08, Soil and Rock (Amer-

Plasticity index, %

A=

swelling ican Society for Testing and Materials, Designation: D

50 Medium 421-422, 1990).
swelling
40 6. B. W. Bache, J. Sci. Food Agric. 27, 273 (1976).
Low
swelling 7. F. G. Bell and M. G. Culshaw, in Geohazards in Engi-
30 A—Activity neering Geology, Ed. by J. G. Maund and M. Eddleston
0.5 (Geological Society, London, 1998), Engineering Geol-
20 A=
ogy Special Publications, No. 15, pp. 427–441.
CEC, meq/100 g 8. F. G. Bell and R. R. Maud, Environ. Eng. Geosci., 1, 41
10 22.5–24.0 (1995).
29.2–36.0
39.0–54.0 9. BS 1377: Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 57.5–72.4 Purposes (British Standards Institution, London, 1975).
Clay fraction
(<0.002 mm), % 10. A. Casagrande, Trans. ASCE, No. 113, 783 (1948).
11. F. H. Chen, Foundations on Expansive Soils (Elsevier,
Fig. 5. Distribution of the randomly selected samples, hav- Amsterdam, 1988).
ing various CEC value, on the swelling potential chart of 12. G. E. Christidis, Appl. Clay Sci., 13 (2), 79 (1998).
van der Merwe (1964). 13. V. Dakshanamurthy and V. Raman, Jpn. Soc. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng. 13, 97 (1973).
14. B. M. Das, Principles of Foundation Engineering (PWS
ues of tested clayey soil samples with their swelling Publishing, 1995).
potential group show that the proposed classification is 15. M. S. Dumbleton, The Classification and Description of
valid in determining the swelling potential of clayey Soil for Engineering Purposes, a Suggested Classifica-
soils based on CEC. tion of British System. RRL Report LR 182. U.K (1968).
16. R. E. Grim, in Clay Mineralogy, 2nd ed. (McGraw Hill,
New York, 1968), pp. 31–125.
CONCLUSIONS
17. W. G. Holtz, J. Colorado School of Mines 54 (4), 89
Although cation exchange capacity values play an (1959).
important role in the swelling behavior of clayey soils, 18. A. I. H. Malkawi, A. S. Alawneh, and O. T. Abu-Safagah,
there is no universally accepted simple quantitative Appl. Clay Sci. 14 (5/6), 257 (1999).
swelling potential classification at present. Soils having 19. R. G. McKeen, in Proceedings of the 7th International
high CEC values can swell more than soils having a low Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, 1992 (1992),
CEC value. The relationship between the cation Vol. 1, p. 1.
exchange capacity and liquid limit was investigated, 20. O. Nawari and K. Schetelig, Eng. Geol, No. 31, 1 (1996).
and a relationship derived as expressed by an empirical 21. N. V. Nayak and R. W. Christensen, Clays Clay Miner.
equation of CEC = Â(2.63 + 0.02 LL). Results of regression 19, 251 (1974).
analyses showed a very good correlation between CEC 22. D. W. Nelson and L.E. Sommers, in Methods of Soil
and LL with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.97. This Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Proper-
suggested a relationship allowed a swelling potential ties, Agronomy Monograph (ASA SSSA, 1982), No. 9,
classification and chart for clayey soils to be developed pp. 539–578.
according to their cation exchange capacity and liquid 23. V. Raman, Ind. Eng. 11, 17 (1967).
limit characteristics. Clayey soils can be classified by 24. H. V. Seed, R. J. Woodward, and R. Lundgren, J. Soil
the proposed swelling potential classification in this Mech. Found. Div. 88 (3), 53 (1962).

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 37 No. 5 2004

512 YŒLMAZ

25. D. R. Snethen, in Proceedings of the 5th International 30. D. H. Van Der Merwe, Civil Eng. S. Afr. 6 (6), 103
Conference on Expansive Soils, Adelaide, Australia, (1964).
1984, p. 22. 31. V. N. Vijayvergiya and O. I. Ghazzafy, in Proceedings of
the 3rd International Research and Engineering Confer-
26. G. B. Sowers, and G. F. Sowers, Introductory Soil
ence on Expansive Clays, 1973, p. 227.
Mechanics and Foundation, 3rd ed. (Mcmillan, New
York, 1970). 32. D. J. Weston, in Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Expansive Soils, 1980 (1980), Vol. 1,
27. G. Sposito, The Chemistry of Soils (Oxford Univ. Press, p. 339.
1989). 33. I. Yilmaz, in Proceedings of the 9th National Clay Sym-
posium, 1999 Ed. by M. Yeniyol, S. Ongen, and
28. A. Sridharan and S. M. Rao, Geotechn. Test. J. GTJODJ
P. A. Ustaomer (1999), p. 39.
11, 208 (1988).
34. I. Yœlmaz and R. Karacan, Bull. IAEG, No. 55, 159
29. Uniform Building Code, UBC Standard No. 29-2 (1968). (1997).

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 37 No. 5 2004

View publication stats